I love how every time a new military weapon or vehicle is under development there are always these turbo-shilling papers showing up and overhyping it's capabilities as if it were some kind of scifi superweapon. I still get a chuckle from old T-14 Armata "leaked" concepts.

probably going to run over budgetEh, BAE is pretty good at avoiding that. It's mostly yank bureaucracy that causes shit to run over budget. BAE had to fix the US army's armoured vehicles when the government ran over budget.

You got that pic from when the Ukrainians slapped some Mosins in plastic stocks and started claiming that they were new "anti-tank rifles" that could destroy a T-14 Armata with a single shot?

10 months ago

Christopher Anderson

Well, pretty much anything's better than the Failure-35, I suppose. Still, something deep inside tells me I'm going to be proven dead wrong in five or 10 years and they will actually manage to slap together a disaster even worse than F-35 in every way.

10 months ago

Ian Cruz

That's the "Object 640" not the T-14.It's an extremely accurate leak, just not of the same tank.

It always comes down to It can do literally anything!!!Eh, they've got to persuade retarded politicians (who know less about military engineering than your average newfag) that it's worth spending X billion on the project.

they will actually manage to slap together a disaster even worse than F-35 in every way.I remember hearing a few rumours a while ago about an upcoming project for an unmanned Air Superiority Fighter. Just imagine the shitshow that will turn into. Do you think the 'scale-able autonomy'they're talking about here will morph into that?

£2billionThat is nowhere near enough money.Why do we need another 5th Gen jet that's probably going to run over budget and not do anything it's supposed to, as well as buying F-35s?Actually I predicted this would happen immediately as soon as UK took stock of it's F-35's. F-35 is far too expensive to run and maintain meaning that they will need a replacement for it. All things considered if they manage to keep operational costs to under $20k per flight hour this aircraft might sell like hotcakes.Built by Brits, French and ItaliansBut then this is going to be a shitshow.That is literally buzzwords that tell you nothing but impress retarded people.At best this aircraft is going to be what the F-35 should have beenIt will be 16 years of arguing where they should setup the photocopier and water cooler. 1 year actually designing and building the aircraft.

10 months ago

Elijah Reed

Should clarify they will insist this aircraft is a replacement for the Eurofighter but it's really the replacement for the F-35 Merkel.

10 months ago

Alexander Harris

To be brutally honest, I think the fighter/drone duality may be a good idea.

a) during low intensity warfare, you want some drones to schwack some mudhuts and caves from above. Drones are neat and can be quite cheap, only problem is that the prop driven ones are rather slow, so to get a good reaction time for when TIC happens, you need to have some up all the time, which means you need lotsa drones, with lotsa pilots and lotsa infrastructure to support all that. Shit costs money, yo!By putting a jet engine or two on the drone you reduce the time it takes from takeoff to get to the area of operation and assisst troops. It is obvious that this version is not meant to be a super long loiter time recon drone. It's too large, too fuel hungry and too fast for that.

b) during high intensity nation vs. nation warfare you want a large number of air superiority fighters, so that you can maintain air superiority at all times, and make sure your own ground troops are safe from enemy air. This was a lesson hard learned by the Wehrmacht on the eastern front of WWII.But maintaining a shitload of fighters that are basically giant Aluminium paper weights during peace time costs a lot of money, and unless you plan to increase your military budget any time soon (aka: not gonna happen), you better find something useful for these planes to do, while you are not using them to shoot down ruskies.

The combination of the two roles makes a lot of sense. Instead of using slow prop driven drones just use fast jet engine ones. Instead of having a bunch of useless fighters rust in some hangar waiting for a war to come, use them to bomb mud huts.

Of course this shit comes with disadvantages too, but the drone control technology is already implemented into any modern air superiority fighter. It doesn't make much sense not to use it as a drone as well, especially since the Eurofighter is living/flying proof that an almost entirely computer controlled, aerodynamically unstable aircraft is viable/flyable.

Lets wait and see how this one turns out. Might actually be kinda cool.

10 months ago

Joshua Johnson

If it's closed circuit autonomous rather than remote controlled then surely the EW wouldn't affect it any worse than a normal aircraft (although BVR missiles are kind of useless if you're limited to visual range)? Unless Russian EW assets equipped with some kind of multi-Terawatt microwave beam that can fry circuitry at long range it could be a way to significantly expand the airforce without investing lots of training and upkeep bux in pilots built with MK1 Meat.

Granted if they are fully autonomous then I can then see that leading to automated aircraft going rogue and targeting things that aren't Russian military aircraft because some faggot programmer decided that his D&D group was more important than thorough bug checking, but that does sound kind of entertaining in its own right.

10 months ago

Adam Green

This reminds me of when I was a kid making my own Pokemon that did all the things and was the most powerful.

I wonder how a sequel would've turned out considering they potentially started WW3 at the end of the movie.It's also strangely self-aware for a retarded piece of post-9/11 bush era propaganda.

10 months ago

Bentley Diaz

If it's closed circuit autonomous rather than remote controlled then surely the EW wouldn't affect it any worse than a normal aircraft.Sure but, no matter what Elon Musk and other retards says, no-one is ever going to build systems without "man-in-the-loop" safeties.

No officer will ever take responsibility for a system that can act on it's own, but can't be blamed when things go wrong. That would mean high ranking officers or politicians are directly and legally responsible for shooting down airliners, with no-one to cover their asses.

They're dumb, not suicidal.

10 months ago

Xavier Johnson

I don't really have any other opinions so here's some more retarded graphics and mockups

It isn't going to be 5th gen, it's going to be 6th (according to them).

overbudgetthey already sunk the costs of research years ago, right now the 2 billion is only for getting tooling ready for production and testing a flying prototype.

The Japanese pulled off something similarly with their X-2 ShinShin program even though it was just to help leapfrog their tech they got the prototype flying for under half a billion dollars.

10 months ago

Parker Hughes

Daily reminder that while the UK has budget seemingly to waste on new Fighters they have no:Maritime Patrol AircraftCAS AircraftBombersOn top of that an aging:Logistics Airfleet including Transport, Tankers and AWACSAttack, Recon and Transport HelicoptersSEAD Aircraft that is set to retire next year

And reminder still that most of NATO is either in or heading to the same boat. Two of the highlighted should take absolute priority over everything else for the UK.

10 months ago

Owen Hughes

Sounds like they're preping for tu95's and their escort

10 months ago

Jaxon Nelson

Right now only the USA has enough money to waste on F-35 and get them in respectable quantity.Everybody else who buys F-35 will have to retire other planes in their airforce,and no matter how 'good' F-35 might be,20 F-35 can't replace 100 F-16.If this tend continues,soon EU will explicitly rely on US for protection from ebil russians.

Eurofighter is more expensive than F-35 already. "Tempest" would break all price records.

10 months ago

Josiah Diaz

Eurofighter is a meme anyway.They should just scrap the whole thing and get Rafale

10 months ago

Nathaniel James

Autonomous planefu, sickened by the emails and tweets sent to it by lonely kommandos, shoots down a civilian airliner, killing hundreds. What will our politicians and staff officers do?Blame the programmer. Blame the maintenance engineers. Blame the mission planning officer. Blame foreign agents who definitely managed to do *something* to the plane before it launched. Blame the ghost of Turing for infecting the system with unplanned free will.

The senior officers and politicians did not get to where they are today without being able to find someone - anyone - else to blame when things go wrong. Keeping a man in the loop completely cripples the development and deployment of autonomous combat systems.

It couldn't possibly come soon enough.

10 months ago

Jayden Lopez

The real question is, why don't they just upgrade the avionics, weapons, and thrust delivery systems of the f-18 and f-16?Because it's cheaper.

10 months ago

Nicholas Powell

Eurofighter is more expensive than F-35 already.

Hello there Lockheeb :)

10 months ago

Caleb Johnson

Is it really that different from planting a landmine somewhere?

10 months ago

Nathaniel Edwards

It might not be all bad. Pic related already has some stealth features, and it's a 15-20m dollar jet.

Even poorfags like Ukraine or Serbia could afford to field hundreds of them.

There were actually three tank designs in progress:1. Armata - Everyone knows what this is, a family of vehicles which includes a tank that has a 100km range radar ffs.2. Black whatever (your pic) - a tank with a turret bustle and much more modern ERA on the front.3. T-95 (my pic) - large abrams-sized area-control tank with larger caliber ammunition and ability to elevate barrel to fire NLOS, it was loaded with tech and too expensive for MOD.

The Object 640 got confused for both T-95 and T-14, in fact retards called it T-95 for almost five years straight.

If it's closed circuit autonomous rather than remote controlledClosed circuit means it's on a cable. Your air superiority fighter is on a cable? Like a phone cable? Only the yugos are crazy enough to do that.

I agree with you 100%. But trust me I've spoken to enough guys with butter bands on their shoulders and I'm telling you the thing they're all terrorized off. "Autonomous" anything is a terrifying word to any officer (and let alone politicians), which is why they like to oversee and micromanage things to the absurd. "Autonomous" means something they can't control and they risk to be the ones blamed by someone higher up the food chain (and there is always someone higher).

I agree that the tech exist and can be done relatively easily but that's the same reason why you don't have widespread automated trains or planes (despite the tech existing since the 60's and 80's respectively), it's a significant psychological hurdle no-one want to get over.Better a fallible man in control than a system, doesn't matter how much the engineers demonstrate their system is statistically safer (and they are), people have issues trusting each other, people CANNOT trust systems (and therefore will not).With a software patch today you retire the entirety of the civilians airliners pilots and you, at least, halves aviation accidents. Trains would require a bit more hardware retrofit than they have (but not that much) and you do the same.But no-one does it.

So autonomous combat system will never pass prototyping save maybe some ridiculous simple and safe ones (logistic drones go from A to B deliver shit, those types).

Is it really that different from planting a landmine somewhere?If the landmine could move and could decide to explode in a village because it saw movement.You can put warnings for mines and mines are typically just used to do area denial and concentrate movements somewhere.Even so planting AP landmines is widely considered a war crime these days, so…

10 months ago

Levi Nelson

I was under the impression that the circuit would be limited entirely to the aircraft, no external command. Self directed (or perhaps, maybe, autonomous).

You make a valid point. But we're currently approaching the end of a generation in command. The guys wearing those uniforms were raised (and formed the basis of their personalities and prejudices) at a time when computers were things that most, but not all, universities had. The next generation is going to be much more amenable to trusting circuits and programs - probably not enough to give them auto-cannons and ATGMS - but more than the current generation do. They are likely to green light projects to automate logistics. Commercial warehouses are approaching that point already, so in 5 or so years it'll likely be just picking an existing off the shelf system; that's much easier to trust than something with the word 'prototype' in the project files.

20 or so years after that though the men sitting behind the big desks are likely to remember own automated cars (or at least a model with an optional 'self driving' mode) and they'll get a step closer, it may take another generation to get automated combat systems off of Zig Forums design threads and into the field, but it's all but inevitable at this point. The only variable seems to be the cost, which decreases every year. As it's inevitable and currently possible there's no reason not to jump the intervening decades and introduce them today. Well, no reason other than the psychological limitations of a few old men who just want a quiet life.

10 months ago

Liam Torres

Trains would require a bit more hardware retrofit than they have (but not that much)You do realize you're full of shit, right?What you're talking about is referred to Positive Train Control in the United States. It's used more as a safety net against operator error, but it's the first step towards getting trains that drive themselves.Congress tried to pass legislation mandating that all Class 1 Railroads (annual operating revenue of > ~$430 million) as well as all railroads operating revenue passenger service implement PTC systemwide by the end of 2015. Now keep in mind that covers hundreds of thousands of miles of track, and that the cost of this systems runs something on the order of millions of dollars per mile'.All the Class 1s got together and basically told Congress it couldn't be done and that they would have to cease operations indefinitely to comply with the mandate. Congress gave them a three year extension. Now that extension is almost up, and it's still not any more possible. They've been spending money hand over fist for the last half a decade trying to make this work and it's not happening.You can make full autonomous trains work on a sterile closed system like a subway. You can make PTC work on high density regions like the Northwest or Southeast Corridors, keeping in mind that either of those examples is approximately equivalent to your entire national rail network. You could probably make it work on a system you were building from scratch, like if you wanted to build an American Shinkansen. But to integrate it to an established system the size of the United States' would basically mean tearing out and replacing every piece of infrastructure except the rail itself.

You fucking knob end.

10 months ago

Justin Taylor

Tight beam microwave or laser transmitted by line of sight from a mobile command.

10 months ago

Matthew Baker

The American rail system is, arguably, a special case. As you've pointed out it's fucking HUGE.US rail network: 265,842 km of trackUK rail network: 17,645 km of trackFrench rail network: 34,362 km of trackGerman rail network: 33,380 km of trackAustralian rail network: 7,592 of trackIndian rail network: 61,240 of trackRussian rail network: 85,375 of trackI'm not going to say that the USA has more rail than the rest of the world put together, but of the 1,051,768 km of rail tracks in the world just under a quarter of them are yours. It'd be a significant project for any country that did it, but it would be much more feasible for anyone other than America.

We can make fucking 100% automated vehicles from submarines to space shuttles.We can't make automated trains, you know shit that is on rails and only moves one way.Bitch please. Of course if the US government ask a US company to make it it's gonna cost millions of dollars per feet of rail as there will surely be the need to have tracks made of solid gold to enhance sensors connectivity.But all it is is a comment about the state of the US industry and government.There is 0 engineering challenge in making automated trains besides precise mapping of the network (which should already exist) and installing regular corrections relays (which granted on the gigantic US system would be a sizable investment, but nothing close to what an (((US company))) will tempted to bill on the literally infinite US budget).

There might be economical reasons to not do it, sure, but it's certainly not a tech issue.

10 months ago

Aiden Foster

Laser weaponryRemote control capabilityDrone swarm payloadAce Combat 3 predicted all of this shit to be widespread by 2040 in Strangereal back in the 90's. Next step should be direct pilot-jet neural links COFFIN systems.It also predicted the F-22 outliving the F-35.

You continue to be a dumb fuck.if the US government ask a US company to make it it's gonna cost millions of dollars per feetThe rail system in the United States is not nationalized like it is in France. This is not a contractor spending taxpayer money, these are private companies spending their own money in an attempt to comply with government 'safety' regulation.

Automating a submarine or spacecraft is trivial because the hazard density of their respective mediums is negligable. What's a submarine going to run into out there in a million square miles of ocean except another vessel or maybe the seafloor? Do you really think you're just going to slap a GPS reciever and a remote control on a locomotive and that's it?

How's your robotrain going to step down off the pilot and physically throw a switch or set a derail? Only mainline turnouts are remotely controlled, and even then only on the busiest junctions and corridors. Do you really expect these companies to pay to install and maintain the equipment to automate every single industrial siding, even the ones that see less than a dozen carloads a year? How's your robot going to climb up onto a car and set the handbrake? Remember, you take a car off of air and the brakes will eventually bleed out and release. I guess you expect them to replace or retrofit every single piece of rolling stock in existence too. What's it going to do when you break a knuckle and split the train in half out in the middle of nowhere? Can't move until you at least go out and cap the air line, so I guess it calls for help and sits there, tying up the line, while it waits for a repair crew. How's robotrain gong to monitor for abnormal track conditions, sun kinks, and so forth?

There have already been experiments with remote control switchers; if they can allow the conductor/brakeman to control the locomotive at the same time they're out there climbing around setting switches/derails/brakes then they can eliminate the 'engineer' seat for their yard crews. Except they're all but universally more trouble than they're worth, doubling the crewman's workload, locking itself into 'man down' safety mode at the slightest provocation, or just by the fact that you have to climb back onto the locomotive to see what you're doing anyway.

Again, this sort of thing works best in isolated, sterile systems. There are a bunch of mining railroads out in Australia that could feasibly be automated, and there's at least one that's trying. It's a single track line from the mine inland to the bulk loading facility on the coast, with maybe two or three passing sidings in between, and nothing else for hundreds of miles. You cruise for eight hours, go around a big loop at each end to turn around, the train loads while moving, unloads while moving, changes crews while moving, no switching, no shunting, they run maybe two or three trains at any given time on the whole network. It would be perfect to automate, except that's not a railroad, that's a rolling conveyor belt.

There might be economical reasons to not do it, sure, but it's certainly not a tech issue.Yeah, and we've had the tech necessary to establish a Mars colony since the 60's. Knowing how to do something, being able to do something, and actually doing it are three entirely different exercises.

10 months ago

Isaiah King

So the problem is that American rail infrastructure is obsolete and the companies are complaining about being legally compelled to bring it up to modern standards? Bear in mind that in Britain complaining about our railway system is practically a national sport, and American trains make ours look fantastic in comparison.

cheapest cargo delivery in the worldlargest network by far(((obsolete)))

10 months ago

Justin Russell

Well maybe if your (((private companies))) had modernized regularly the rail infrastructure since 1922 instead of maximizing profits you wouldn't have to do everything manually.You're taking pride in shit that is from literally the stone age of rail transport.

IIRC there isn't even a single hi-speed line in the US.

And again you're mixing economical consideration for technical limitations.

10 months ago

Owen Lopez

Be American railway ownerYou are given two choicesSacrifice a little short term profit to engage in regular, incremental, modernisation projects - encouraging growth, expanding capacity, reducing accidents and risk, and reducing costs/maximising profits long term.Keep equipment, infrastructure, and practices until they literally rust out and become useless - pocketing a little more cash here and there, but making your eventual, inevitable, upgrade costs climb higher and higher every year until you're faced with a bill you have no hope of paying.and they chose option two, yet somehow still have the gall to complain that 'modernisation is like SOOOOOOOOO expensive you guise!'. You can tell that these are men who inherited everything they own.

10 months ago

Austin Howard

US rail network: 265,842 km of trackThree quibbles:1. America is by far the most populous developed nation. India and China doesn't count, they're still figuring out how toilets work.2. It also has to do with the size of the country, Canada for example has only 30 million people but 42 thousand kilometers of track.3. How much of that track is modern, used track, and how much of it is obsolete unused track?

10 months ago

Kayden Carter

Well maybe if your (((private companies))) had modernized regularly the rail infrastructure since 1922 instead of maximizing profits you wouldn't have to do everything manually.You're right, maintenance of existing infrastructure was never at the top of anyone's priority list, in either the private or public sector. In the 50's an onward, the government's view was "we're putting all of this money into aviation and the interstate highway system, let's prop up the railroads just long enough for the other modes of transport to start taking the burden" See: Amtrak and Conrail.Oh, and remind me, who rebuilt most of your transportation infrastructure, including your rail network, after the war? That's right, us. So don't act like you deserve all the credit. And if the French system is so great, why don't you show me how you can switch out an industry without the crew leaving the cab? Based on how little actual freight Euro railways tend to move, my guess is "you don't", you just run unit trains to the nearest intermodal yard or bulk goods terminus, and let trucks handle the first and last miles.

10 months ago

Jace Young

destroy sand castlerepair it <YOU OWE ME EURO

10 months ago

Owen Fisher

run our own railroads into the dirt trying to keep up with the war efforttake money we should have put to use at home and instead use it to rebuild Europe<Gee Amerika, why didn't you invest in your railroads like I did?

Half the states of the US are landlocked.No European major city is more than a few hundreds miles from a major port/waterways.Typically it's 0.HURR DURR YOU DON'T MOVE AS MUCH FREIGHT BY RAIL AS US! AMERICA! AMERICA!The burger mind in a nutshell.

You can do all of it with analog technology. Tracks are a continuous circuit by themselves. It's not fucking hard to do a basic electrical impulse systems.This:if they can allow the conductor/brakeman to control the locomotive at the same time they're out there climbing around setting switches/derails/brakes then they can eliminate the 'engineer' seat for their yard crewsIs what they do in under-developed countries like India.There are NO ENGINEERS OR BRAKEMEN IN MODERN TRAINS.Just as there are no more flight engineers and flight technicians in planes.

Because none of that shit is done manually anywhere on the fucking planet except in the 3rd world and in the US. Train send signal -> Switching is done.

You can tell this thread is full of autists cause they are arguing about trains.

10 months ago

Nathan Diaz

How much of that track is modern, used track, and how much of it is obsolete unused track?The point here is that the US rail network is obsolete, used, track; rather than either of the two options you've listed there.

eurosThe fuck did you just call me!? But this is my point. Even with the UK having a terrible and poorly managed rail network we're still a generation or two ahead of America in that regard - and that was despite several decades of government policy that almost looks like it was designed to destroy British railways.

10 months ago

Lucas Campbell

Because the UK government is retarded and doesn't about anything but themselves.

10 months ago

Dylan Miller

we're still a generation or two ahead of America in that regardlow axle loadtiny loading gauge and train lengthaheadWhy do britbongs refuse to upgrade their outdated rails made by 19th century standards? Why do they refuse to encouraging growth, expanding capacity, reducing accidents and risk, and reducing costs/maximising profits long term?

10 months ago

Ryan Hill

HURR DURR YOU DON'T MOVE AS MUCH FREIGHT BY RAIL AS US!You're still not answering my question or addressing my claims.

There are NO ENGINEERS OR BRAKEMEN IN MODERN TRAINS. Just as there are no more flight engineers and flight technicians in planes.That's possibly a terminology thing? Train crews in the United States are composed of two positions, the 'Engineer', who drives the train and does nothing else, and the 'Conductor', who does everything else, communicating with dispatch, filling out paperwork, and yes, getting out of the train to do the fiddly bits you can't do from the cab. In the past, 'Brakeman' was a separate position to do the 'fiddly bits', but those responsibilities were long ago rolled into the 'Conductor' seat.

Train send signal -> Switching is done.You are still full of shit. Show me where a French crew can switch out an industry without leaving the cab. And just to be perfectly clear, I meanstop the train at an industrytake the cars out of the train that go to that industryput them on a siding to be unloadedtake the now-empty cars from the last train that was here, return them to the consistcouple back up, do a brake check, and leaveActually, watch the attached video. The brakeman steps out of the cab and physically pulls a lever to uncouple the cars and set the points. What 19th century techno-barbarism is this? I thought the French were supposed to be better than that.

10 months ago

Jace Gutierrez

How can muh infrastructure europoors even recover?To move the same number of tons, around seven times more trains are necessary in Europe. For a thousand tons the U.S. Class I railroads require 0.28 trains; in Europe it is 1.94 (Figure 2). As shown in Figure 3, the operational revenues per ton-mile are higher in Europe, almost two times more than in the U.S. (DB Shenker, being the largest European freight railway, will be used in the comparison, and data for CP Carga the main Portuguese freight railway are also presented). But the operational expenses are almost four times higher than the ones in the U.S. In fact, European railways are barely profitable or not profitable at all (European Commission 2009b).

You can do all of it with analog technologyuser, have you ever worked with any kind of machine learning or artificial intelligence in your life? Just curious.

10 months ago

Luis Davis

meme planeSomeone found a good way to funnel money out of the sheeps' trough.

10 months ago

Cooper Bennett

That's possibly a terminology thing?Not really. There is

I thought the French were supposed to be better than that.That's a factory (private) railway. And it's not an actual train, it's a shunting machine. There not allowed to circulate on the actual network…Industrial railways are privately owned and operated and guess what, they do the same as you and save bucks everywhere they can until something really breaks. Industrial railways are only connected to the main network via a fret operator. Employees of the industry railyard are tasked with loading/unloading, employees of the fret company just handle transport.Again rail fret isn't much develloped not becasue of technology but because it makes little sense economically (just as rail passenger transport makes little sense economically in the US) because of geography you're never far from a port, Europe is way more densely populated than the US, industrial areas are older (and are therefore nearly all are completely within urban concentrations so have fun expropriating tens of thousands if you need more fret), etc… So trucks are so much simpler to use than fret trains.

That's what modern coupling looks like.You guys know that we can do the same in fucking space without any operator whatsoever but somehow you really think that coupling and uncoupling train cars is impossible???

user, have you ever worked with any kind of machine learning or artificial intelligence in your life? Just curious.And you have you ever heard of a point-to-point network? Have you ever wonder why pajeet is taking your job?

10 months ago

Easton Flores

Not really. There is Shit.There is only a "conductor" aboard a train in Europe. It's a one man job (half-man job in high speed trains, the train is largely running on autopilot).

10 months ago

Grayson Hughes

have you ever heard of a point-to-point networklol backpedaling

pajeet is taking your joblolnope

10 months ago

Juan Hernandez

A point to point network can be analog… in fact they mostly used to be.It's what phone networks were you inbreeding islander.In fact the US control rooms I showed earlier are exactly that.

If you've got more info to post on it then please do. At the moment I think we've discussed all of the almost nothing they've released on the project, and come to the conclusion that it will be cheaper than the F35 (because fuelling an aircraft with liquid gold would be cheaper than an F35), and that it could potentially be used as a UCAV. Do you have any more news on the tempest? I'd love to hear it if you do. If not then how fucked is the train network in leaf-land?

10 months ago

Luke Jackson

could afford to field hundreds of themBut why on earth would we need this useless shit?

10 months ago

Elijah Wright

Because you wouldn't lose donbass with it. Do you plan on using old soviet shit you can't afford to replace forever? I mean, they're going to keep knocking them down…

10 months ago

Cooper Wood

Because you wouldn't lose donbass with it.We both know that's not true. Ukrainians are like Arabs - you can give them all the modern weapons and training you like, but they'll still get their asses handed to them every time.

10 months ago

Jace Bennett

There is nothing to discuss, they showed an horribly aliased 3d model not even a mod-kiddy would dare to show.

I think it's great to have a BAe/Leonardo future plane VS Dassault/Airbus future plane (because concurrence is the only way to have good shit) and every major EU power basically admitting that the F-35 is an unaffordable POS.

It's even more funny when both Leonardo/BAe and UK/Italy are first tier clients of the F-35…

10 months ago

Kevin James

That's slavs in general.

10 months ago

Wyatt Rodriguez

Do you plan on using old soviet shit you can't afford to replace forever?Each of those tiny cuck planes cost 20+ million dollars and can take down nothing, thanks but I'd rather stick to a post-Soviet counter-air defense system with further Gripen transition. How's your emu overlord doing?

10 months ago

Aiden Sullivan

Most Slavs can win a war by throwing enough men into the grinder. Ukrainians can't even manage that much. Should've just mentioned the Chinese buying our country wholesale. That hurts a lot more than a century of failed pest control measures.

10 months ago

Brandon Morales

That hurts a lot more than a century of failed pest control measures.Nigger, Anglos, Eurofags and burgers are ruled by jews and commies, spics by bloodthirsty criminals, and the rest of the world by chinks or vodkaniggers. Each of them at least take a bit of solace, or save face in thinking or saying they may have lost, but at least to a powerful, resourceful, well-equipped, armed-to-the-teeth opponet! You faggots lost and are ruled over by a bunch of unarmed flighltless birds! What can be more pathetic than that?

10 months ago

Tyler Walker

Actually, this has got me thinking. Could it be related to perchance? Sage for doublepost.

10 months ago

Adam Parker

If there is one interesting tidbit to glean from this PR stunt, it's that the mere existence of funding for such paper projects is a sign that the chickens are finally coming home to roost for the debacle that is the F-35. It's proof that there are sizeable contingents within the various European air forces that have lost faith in the F-35 ptogram and have enough influence to at least initiate the search for alternatives.

The last saving grace of the F-35 program was that enough airframes had already been promised for export that the per unit cost would eventually fall to the point of being fairly reasonable. However, the loss of just a single major export partner might be enough to collapse the wholr house of cards on top of Lockheed and the corrupt DoD procurement system.

There are currently ~3,156 F-35's that have been delivered, ordered, or are planned to be purchased in public agreements. Let's say the two shakiest partners, Canada and the Netherlands, back out of their agreements. That's 102 airframes gone which equates to ~3% of total production. That 3% raises the per unit cost as Lockheed can't spread their embarrassing R&D costs over those additional airframes. That means the cost to buy an F-35 goes up for someone, whether the US absorbs all of it or it hits the export partners doesn't matter. Each incremental increase in price will be met by a reduction in orders, creating a death spiral whereby the only fix is for the US to dump even mote $$$ into buying aircraft that are already a political hot button issue.

I can honestly see the F-35 heading in the direction of the F-22 if a half-decent alternative is presented to the largest export partners. If the continental EU + Canada + Australia partners back out, that is an ~11% drop in total orders and there is no way Congress can justify the current US F-35 orders if the per unit cost shoots up by ~10-11%. That'll kick off an enormous death spiral that ends with less than half the original number of F-35s actually entering service.

10 months ago

Logan Jackson

Again Eurofighter is more expensive then F-35 it didn't stop europoors in the past. Any new plane realistically would be at least x3 times price of the Eurofighter.

F-35 has issues (main is that it is one big gaping backdoor and can't be relied upon if country displeases US, well this was the plan) but cost is not the thing europoors can do better.

10 months ago

Gabriel Jones

With Russian threat on the rise Congresses would approving any price and any gear. Marines are SCREAMING for the Overmatch.

10 months ago

Carson Jackson

Eurofighter is more expensive than F-35Adjusted for influation or based on the bureaucratic parts supply faggotry required to reliably maintain them?It'll be tough to beat the F-35's planned 1.3 trillion $ program cost though I'm certain they'll find a way to pull it off.

Eurofighter is more expensive then F-35No it's not.Claim of Lockheed about the F-35 are lower priced than the Eurofighter. If you look up how Japan/UK/Israel were billed for ONE squadron (each) the F-35 is easily 33% pricier than the Eurofighter (which isn't cheap, it's like 6 or 7x a F-16. But the first batches of F35 are coming out at 9 maybe 10x).

Israel gets them for free, Japan immediately launched the Mitsubishi X-2 project upon delivery of their F-35, UK and Italy got their delivery and are immediately launching the Tempest, South Korea go their delivery they launched the KF-X, Turkey got their delivery they launched the TF-X.

There is something terribly wrong with the F-35, everyone is planning to buy the minimum of airframes they're required and have payed for with the R&D fee/industrial package to uphold the deal they are stuck with but everyone is clearly planing to bail the minute they can.

10 months ago

Charles Nguyen

What's the most likely thing to happen that could publicly discredit the whole stealth thing?

10 months ago

Evan Hughes

A mutual radar-based BVR engagement between stealth aircraft who are supposed to be invisible or an F-35 getting shot down by 50 year old barely maintained Soviet AA.

10 months ago

Julian Nguyen

A brand new, fresh off the assembly line, F-35, getting shot down by an insurgent launched Strela MANPAD. BUT MUH IR!Do you really think that politicians will care when they see the headline announcing that the latest and greatest stealth aircraft got shot down by a missile older than they are?

10 months ago

Samuel Clark

What's the most likely thing to happen that could publicly discredit the whole stealth thing?Nothing. Everyone that know his shit know it's not a game changer.The "whole stealth thing" is first and foremost a mix of PR (lockheed selling feature) and propaganda (the thing that won the cold war USA STRONNNKKKKK).Both of which are fueled by so much money and psychological (if not clinical) obsessions that it would take an impossible situation to break it.The US attack someone with decent air-defenses (which they're not gonna do), they uses mostly stealth planes to bomb (which they're not gonna do as long as they have F-16 and flying those is cheaper) and F-35 get shotdown at a vietnam airloss rate (which would mean someone that is enemy of the US with decent air defense AND know how which is still a short list and most of them have nukes and the US isn't going to bomb people with nukes)

10 months ago

Daniel Hall

Is the tempest shit even real? BAE keeps coming up with drawings and projections that never materialize.

It's an ultra efficient tactical bomber/CAS and ISR jet. It can carry 90% ordnance as a Su-24, and yet weighs 50% of it.

20+ millionOnly the first one, after that you can make them yourself for $1 mil a piece, since its designed to be manufactured in dumps like Ukraine.

Gripenhe wants to pay $100 million for a jet inferior to an f-16Retard.

10 months ago

Hunter Brooks

BAE keeps coming up with drawings and projections that never materializeBAE keeps coming up with drawings and projections that either the faggots at NATO or the faggots in Westminster kill for one reason or another. FTFY

10 months ago

Joshua Powell

I still get a chuckle from old T-14 Armata "leaked" concepts. It always comes down to It can do literally anything!!Except the Armata chassis can do literally anything. That was the whole point of developing the Armata chassis: to give a basis for the next MBT, future IFVs, and other vehicles like SPAAGs

10 months ago

Dominic Hall

you can make them yourself for $1 mil a pieceAh, I was wondering why it's so expensive compared to other similar aircraft.

10 months ago

Jason Long

a single chassis can be used for an MBT, an IFV, a self-propelled howitzer, and a SPAAGDaily reminder that 90% of people who believe this also believe that the F-35 was "compromised" by being multirole. You can't believe that and also believe that a single chassis can be used for every single armored vehicle in the military.

10 months ago

Lincoln Walker

Maybe not every single role, but tanks aren't planes, so F-35 is hardly conclusive evidence that it's nonsense.

10 months ago

Eli Harris

You can't believe that and also believe that a single chassis can be used for every single armored vehicle in the military.Plane can multirole. Just not the F-35.The F-35 is a bad design because it was design around a multipropulsion mode and single engine and therefore just cannot do the job of a multirole plane.The idea of the multirole is you take the most specialized task and you go down from there.A tank is a highly specialized vehicle. Using a tank chassis to do something simpler is therefore piss easy.All tanks always had their chassis modified to be used for something else even if just "simple" engineering vehicles.

10 months ago

Jacob Harris

The first ten or so jets they sell is basically all they're ever going to sell.

~$100 mil covers their program costs well, and pays for engineers salaries.

10 months ago

Cameron Murphy

all that grasping at strawsLook, it would be easier to just admit you're biased.

multipropulsion modeU wot?

a tank is a highly specialized vehicleJust like a fighter jet.

do something simplerI don't think you understand what "specialized" means.

10 months ago

Austin Jones

That's a weird approach. Do they not have the manufacturing capacities?

10 months ago

Julian Fisher

They do, it's just the nature of the beast, cheap aircraft are tough sells to the average developing country.This is why projects like this rarely get sold even ONCE, because the manufacturer has to be dead certain they will get paid before the first aircraft is delivered. And no one is willing to pay up front for an aircraft they can't examine.

I remember back in the 90s the Skyfox being an excellently engineered improvement of the T-33 trainer, and still being relegated to napkin status because it's so hard to find someone willing to pay up front.

There is something terribly wrong with the F-35Yeah it's called $30-40k per flight hour. For reference Rafale and Eurofighter barely top out at $20k and most are well over a decade old at this stage so were likely between $10-15k per flight hour when new. Nobody can afford to fucking fly the F-35. How hard is that to grasp?Well Texas three things; BvR engagement as anons have said where they discover there are ways to detect them.The second again as anons have said some ancient missile that could have been used by Aztecs takes one down.The third is when someone floods the airspace with ECM forcing the F-35 into a dogfight where it will get it's ass handed to it. Which has happened to the F-22 on multiple occasions whenever they've conducted proper wargames

10 months ago

Jonathan Gonzalez

muh F-35When will this shitty meme die, first it started with people wanting to get rid of our A-10's and now this shit?Fuck, this really is getting annoying.

I wouldn't ask someone who obviously just makes up numbers. You can't really calculate what it costs to run an aircraft per hour with any responsible claim to accuracy because the number of extraneous variables is almost infinite. is basically pulling figures out of his ass.

The MiG-21 is a 1950's design that served since the 60's in many air forces with a plethora of configurations. To simply fly one and to fly it in combat are very different prospects. I'd venture that, to fly one in combat in this day and age you would be expecting to outlay the entire cost of the aircraft and all maintenance work done on it since it would get blown out of the sky in short order.

10 months ago

Robert Perez

A chassis is hardly comparable to a stealth airframe. It's primarily designed to carry heavy weights over rough terrain in all its appliances and in combination to the number of self-propelled land vehicles the entirety of a country's armed forces need it makes much logistical sense to seek commonality. Airplanes are by default much more specialized less redundant designs with more sophisticated distribution of weights that their performance can be greatly compromised by even superficial modifications, especially in the case of a single engined plane with already too many aerodynamic compromises for the shake of stealth. Also the unit number and cost of planes that are built does not put so much pressure for commonality of parts unless you are making the new MiG-15, MiG-21 or at ll east the new F-16 (which was lockheeb's wet dream).

10 months ago

Ryder King

By that I don't intend to downplay potential issues with Arrmata's performance to each individual role just pointing out that unless it completely sucks the logistical benefits will be worth it in the long run whereas in the case of the f-35, which is already a logistical nightmare, underperformance is compromising its mission and a single combat loss would result to loss of its overhyped public image.

Hard to give a rough estimate. Everyone's favourite poo powered Chairforce gives some ideas. In general I wager it costs massively more to operate than it does to buy depending on the age of model. Apparently there is a fag who bought one privately for $300k and it costs around $10k per flight hour but I am not sure that would be a realistic figure. Probably closer to $20k would sound about right.Actually his figures aren't that off from what most sources would cite.It probably should be worth pointing out that chart doesn't factor into account the cost of operating the aircraft when new. If you were to have brand new F-16's for example that cost would be way down.

Which is why the F-22 never replaced the F-15 which is what a lot of fags seem to ignore.

10 months ago

Camden White

I'm still pissed off at the lack of F-15S and F-16 VISTA upgrade packages in active service with the USAF, let alone the untimely demise of the YF-23, F-20 and ASF-14.Fuck, imagine what kind of crazy shit the Russians would've cooked up in response during such a timeline.Lockheeb must burn at the stake

Note that the Poo airforce loses at least 5 MiG per year.This might have something to do with that…

10 months ago

Jack White

USSR had similar MiG-21 attrition rates.

10 months ago

Nathaniel Campbell

Sure thing, the USSR crashed 5000+ MiG-21.

10 months ago

Daniel James

USSR existed hundreds years

10 months ago

Brody Hernandez

Hmm. And I guess, even if it can double as trainer, that market is already oversaturated as it is? I remember that our airforce had trouble getting rid of surplus L-39s a decade ago, and those don't seem all that different, at least as far as serving as trainers is concerned.

10 months ago

Zachary Peterson

India's fighter fleet is the same size as the USSR's was

10 months ago

Lincoln Ortiz

If you want to talk in relative numbers accounting all that.India had 4-7 accidents per 100000 flight hours.USSR had 30 accidents per 100000 flight hours.

10 months ago

Ethan Brown

muh irreducible complexitydo you drink water?well not really, i drink a mixture of water, minerals, dissolved oxygen, dissolved carbon dioxide, dissolved nitrogen….This is some mickey mouse shit. You can give an estimate and call it an estimate, without it being "out of ass" random guess.

AH-64 can't be that low. Since it specifically says "versus ISIS" they must be writing off all the expense of flying the AH-64 around without it doing anything. In other words they're only counting mission time, not time on station.Cost to fly per hour is the most politicized measurement I've ever seen. F-22 cost is given anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000 per hour. I tried to be as fair as I could in my list.

YOU FORGOT TO PRORATE IT

USSR had more 15x more MiG-21s, if pajeets are losing 5 per year, pinko would lose I hate anal faggots like you. Have a taste of your own medicine.

Anyone can get a hand me down as an older generation airplane. To my knowledge the only light combat aircraft that ever took off was the F-5, and that was only because its performance was so stellar that it literally couldn't be ignored.

10 months ago

Adrian Miller

India has lost over HALF it's MiG-21 to accidents.They made 650+, they crashed 350.India is the only country in the world where this shit happens.They've already crashed a squadron of Su-30 in 8 years!Russia has lost 2 in 20! (One at an airshow doing daft things, one in combat operation in Syria).

You will see very soon Rafale crashing in India even if in France only one trainer crashed in 25 years (and more were lost in carrier operations that are notably more accident prone).

10 months ago

Brody Gutierrez

DESIGNATED

SHITTING

PLANES

10 months ago

Carter Price

I wonder what it's like to serve aboard an Indian aircraft carrier.

10 months ago

Gavin Ortiz

Be me Be pajit pilotBe flying back from taking a massive curry dump all over PakistanA burst of flak hits my planeMy instruments are damagedAnd it's nightEightsweetyHindumenrapinga2Muslimgirl.jpegHow will I ever make it back to the carrierNest my head in my hands and prey to Shiva Almost shit my self with fearBut that smell Realisation.7zI can smell the carrier The smell of curry and diarrhea leed me backIn going to make itWhen I get back to my village I am going to rape the lower cast whore who looked at me that one timeI bet she's not even a virginIn with in sight of the carrier nowMy jet crashes into the oceanMFW I can't fly Im reincarnated as a low cast girl

10 months ago

Hunter King

Shitty.

10 months ago

Christopher Walker

Russia has lost 2 in 20! (One at an airshow doing daft things, one in combat operation in Syria).Russian military flight hours and accidents are classified so there is nothing to discuss.

USSR and India statistics i posted above.

10 months ago

Lucas Collins

So the USSR crashed 5500 MiGs?Or are you seriously gonna say that India trains more than the USSR did (but still get it's shit pushed by Pakis).

10 months ago

Ian Howard

It's not a fighter.

10 months ago

Jaxson Robinson

I'm still pissed off at the lack of F-15S and F-16 VISTA upgrade packages in active service with the USAF

Important things to noteThe USAF contacted Boeing, it wasn't just Boeing shoveling dreams into the void like the SEFixed price contract

10 months ago

Jackson Ramirez

<not even our greatest ally wants the F-35Apart from the lack of TVC and Canards what the fuck is it with Burgers and their hatred for foreplane elevators, the Russians haven't had any issues with them since the Su-33 this F-15X proposal sounds rather nice.

Confirm your age

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.